Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #380819

Re: bart again (UCX64)

Show all headers | View raw

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> On 1/24/24 04:30, David Brown wrote:
>> On 24/01/2024 00:59, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>
>> For the record, Keith's summary here is completely correct as far as I
>> remember this thread. Tim's does not match what he or others wrote. I
>> do not recall ever seeing any kind of "withdrawal". It's clearly
>> possible that I missed said withdrawal, or that I have forgotten it,
>> but if there has been such a withdrawal it must have been so subtle
>> that no one else in the thread saw it. I'm sure that anyone else would
>> have brought it to Keith's attention long ago. (I certainly would have.)
>>
>> And if Tim had been interested in communicating clearly, he could have
>> repeated the withdrawal and given a reference to the first posting of
>> it, instead of floundering with attempted definitions of the word
>> "answer".
>
> On 2023-09-04 18:42:14 Keith said:
>> It does have undefined behavior, ... but it does not
>> violate any syntax rule or constraint.
>
> On 2023-09-04 21:16:01 Tim responded:
>> I say it does. 
>
> On 2023-09-04 21:57:44 Keith responded:
>> What syntax rule or constraint does it violate?
>
> A long discussion occurred, during which Tim repeatedly failed to
> identify a syntax rule or constraint violated by that code.
>
> On 2023-10-26 11:56:12, Tim wrote:
>> I realized at some point that my earlier statement was not
>> understood the way I meant it. Rather than try to go back and
>> unwind the miscommunication, I decided to just drop it. I
>> withdraw my earlier statement. Okay?
>
> Now, I cannot imagine (and as normal, Tim has refused to explain) what
> meaning he intended by saying "I say it does." that would make "it does"
> correct. But he did in fact withdraw that comment.
>
> However, on 2023-11-19 03:25:56, Tim falsely claimed:
>> I did answer.
>
> Apparently, for reasons best know to Tim (since, as usual, he refuses to
> explain them), he considered one of the messages in which he failed to
> identify a syntax rule or a constraint violated by that code, to be,
> despite that failure, an answer to Keith's question.
>
> That message effectively cancelled his withdrawal of that comment.

Tim, I acknowledge that at one point you did withdraw your "I say it
does" remark.  At least I'm assuming that when you wrote "I withdraw my
earlier statement", the statement you were referring to was your earlier
"I say it does".  Feel free to clarify that.

Looking back at the article in which you wrote "I withdraw my earlier
statement", I see that I actually replied to it.  It was a long article
in which you mused at length about shared understanding and unconscious
assumptions.  I must have read it at the time.  It's likely that I
accidentally missed your "I withdraw my earlier statement".  I accept
responsibility for that.

I agree with James that your later posts effectively cancelled your
withdrawal.  They also seriously muddied the waters.

I am still bewildered by your later claims that you had already answered
my question (and by your condescending suggestion to James to look up
the word "answer" in a dictionary).  Those claims were part of what led
me to think that you still stood by your original "I say it does"
statement -- a statement which I found to be completely unambiguous in
context.

In all this, after your original statement you have never chosen to
comment on the original technical issue, instead choosing to write
multiple vague paragraphs about the importance of clear communication.
On at least one occasion, likely more, you have talked about having or
not have a "shared understanding" of some statement while saying nothing
about *your* understanding of it.

I still don't know whether your "I say it does" was simply an error on
your part (i.e., that you wrongly thought that some syntax rule or
constraint was violated), or whether you intended it to mean something
other than the obvious interpretation.

Please consider the possibility that if multiple people don't seem to
understand what you're trying to say, it might not be everyone else's
fault.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-12-25 17:45 -0800
  Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-12-25 21:12 -0800
  Re: bart again (UCX64) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-12-27 20:14 -0500
    Re: bart again (UCX64) Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-27 23:22 -0300
      Re: bart again (UCX64) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-28 04:25 +0100
    Re: bart again (UCX64) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-28 04:22 +0100
      Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-23 14:58 -0800
        Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 15:59 -0800
          Re: bart again (UCX64) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 10:30 +0100
            Re: bart again (UCX64) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-24 11:57 -0500
              Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 11:26 -0800
                Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-14 21:14 -0800
                Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-14 22:29 -0800
                Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-19 17:53 -0800
              Re: bart again (UCX64) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 09:15 +0100
                Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 07:16 -0800
                Re: bart again (UCX64) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 09:20 +0100
    Re: bart again (UCX64) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-12-28 09:12 +0100
      Re: bart again (UCX64) Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2023-12-28 16:31 +0800
    Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-23 15:06 -0800

csiph-web